[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] An initial proposal regarding IANA development

[CW Mail]

Dear Seun Ojedeji and colleagues:

Thankyou for your interest and support. I shall follow those carefully.

(a) I shall probably not post more widely until i have had the opportunity to take on board these, and other comments and suggestions for improvements.

(b) There are rather too many Lists claiming precedence in these matters. (At least half a dozen). To the point that I wonder whether ISOC really needs yet another one.

Regards

CW


	
On 26 Mar 2014, at 20:02, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to most part of your contribution.
> 
> However I think a contribution like this could be cross-posted to the ianatransition at icann.org where contributions are being accepted by ICANN.
> 
> Thanks.
> Cheers!
> 
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On 27 Mar 2014 02:29, "CW Mail" <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> Good afternoon:
> Further to Kathy Brown's messages of 22 and 23 March, I would like to make a few comments and suggestions as to how the IANA 'globalisation' might proceed, and what could be the role of the Internet Soceity. These are born of a certain experience in several capacities in relation to Internet Governance and ICANN since the 1990's and from more recent observations.
> The NTIA announcement and the ISOC staff 'initial proposal' do imply that the globalisation of IANA should take place within the multistakeholder context of ICANN. That would indeed appear to be the only viable direction to go, but it comes with several constraints and conditions. It is also a 'case to be made': that option is by no means universally held.
> ICANN itself needs a thorough reformation, particularly with regard to the balance of power within the 'bottom-up' multistakeholder policy development process. If the logical unity of the ICANN and IANA roles is to be maintained, then ICANN itself has to be credible as the global custodian of the Internet Naming and Addressing system and related policies. 
> 
> At present that is quite a stretch, not least because of the unsatisfactory nature of the decisions leading up to the on-going new gTLD process and the resulting controversies.
> Consequently, the reform of ICANN and the IANA transfer will have to take place hand-in-hand. Not least because – other than among the commercially financed operators – there are too few resources and not enough voluntary time to conduct two or more parallel reform processes. Furthermore, it must be clear from the start that the IANA transfer relates to the whole of the IANA-related functions, including the root zone management functions. Otherwise from an international point of view, the game is not worth the candle.
> Counter proposals already emanating from the IGP and InternetNZ envisage creating additional 'entities' in the name of 'structural separation' of ICANN and IANA. They also rather down-play the oversight role of the GAC. That would be quite unrealistic.
> Furthermore, the IGP proposal would envisage the IANA function controlled by a new entity “DNSA” which would be dominated by the Registries and Registrars. This idea has a precedent. In 2009, the Technology Policy Institute was already arguing that ICANN itself should be controlled by the contracting parties, i.e. The Registries and Registrars. That would evidently deny the multistakeholder structure which must remain open to all stakeholders, including users' interests.
> 
> However, recent experience with the new gTLD programme strongly suggests that the influence of the Registries and Registrars within ICANN is already too great and that other stakeholders, including governments, have not been able to exercise effective counter-vailing power.
> 
> The idea of confiding IANA to a separate entity without effective oversight and controlled by commercially interested parties, is unlikely to enjoy consensus.
> In conclusion, recognising that these reforms will continue over an extended period, it is essential that the Internet Society itself ensures that it does support a fully multistakeholder process both internally and externally. ISOC could contribute effectively to rebalancing representation of user interests and civil society, on a permanent basis, particularly through Chapters' membership, in several relevant fora, including the IGF, MAG, ICANN and NETmundial.
> 
> Regards
> Christopher Wilkinson
> On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:39, Kathy Brown <brown at isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140326/a780921e/attachment.htm>